Sunday, May 31, 2009

The Power Of Precedence To End A Debate - Religious vs Legal System

The Power Of Precedence To End A Debate - Religious vs Legal System

In the past 2 weeks I have had powerful debates with two individuals that I can surely accurately call "progressives". I am not sure if they would be admit to being called "Secular Progressives". This despite their theories as applied upon our culture would make them so.

AVOIDANCE Of The "God Said So, Its Final"

In the first debate that took place on "Conservative Black Woman's" blog concerning Gay Marriage, one strident defender of Gay Marriage as a RIGHT per the legalistic mantra as expressed in the US legal system repudiated any grounds used to defend "Traditional Marriage" that were based upon religiosity.

This particular combatant knew that if he allowed the "God said it. I believe it. That's final" argument to stand that he would not be able to have a rational debate based on facts because we are in the domain of religious faith.

I then went on to provide, what I believed to be, a strident argument for the defense of Traditional Marriage in the context of the "Judeo-Christian Cultural Tradition". My debate adversary attempted to reject the "Judeo-Christian" ethic (the one that we presently live within in America) mostly because of the name that it carries - Judeo meaning Jewish and Christian.

I argued that the basic facts of human relations do not change over time. Only the technology and our means for travel changes. The PRECEDENCE of the "Judeo-Christian Cultural order" has brought us this far as a human species and thus I am willing to continue with this framework.

When asked for his own justification of the radical changes that he had proposed he stuck to THE LAW of the United States that provided the RIGHT for 2 consenting adults to marry who they pleased. Thus he did not bother to go beyond this one life preserver that he clung to lest he have to justify his claim with a vibrant swim.

PREFERENCE of "The US Legal System Operates On Legal Precedence And Thus The Debate Has Been Settled"

In a second debate with a different person but this time on the"Booker Rising" blog the subject under discussion was about the justification for Judge Sonia Sotomayor to negate the promotions of the panel of fire fighters in New Haven CT because they lacked "racial diversity".

It was my view that the City of New Haven, having tossed the results of the battery of tests for the open lieutenants' positions not because there was ACTUAL "racism" found in the evaluation process but because someone MIGHT see RACISM because no Black candidate had made the cut was an abomination of our current state of law and labor relations. I further charged that the municipal officials, the lower court judge and judge Sotomayor applied "assumed inferiority" upon the Black candidates with the assumption that they are unable to be provided with a fair test and come out among the top ranking candidates, everything else being equal.

The response from my debate adversary, who is also an attorney, was based upon his claims about "legal precedence" to which Judge Sotomayor's ruling was in line with.

As this poster referenced the Civil Rights Act under which this ruling had taken place I challenged him and others to show in the text where this ruling is justified. In fact, the text could be more strongly used to show the ILLEGALITY of such an action.

It became clear to me that the claim of "legal precedence" binds people over in a fashion that is akin to "God said it. It is settled. I believe it".

How ironic that our history is full of White racists who cowered behind "legal precedence" in order to protect actions that they knew were unjust. It is ironic for an interest group that doggedly seeks to protect the integrity of voting outcomes would themselves seek to "throw out the results" of a process that they could not find any fault with....except the RESULTS that did not meet their expectations.

Clearly there was a point in time in which they cursed those who made use of precedence.


Is it too clear to me that at our present time as a people there is a need for the Black community to establish a "precedence of equality". Thus far we have fought to have the systems that govern and educate us show that we are seen as equals. This has resulted in an array of legal protections that can be executed against all who violate this trust.

The other side of the balance scale has not been focused upon. This side asks Black people to express our own EQUALITY. Thus when forces within the system attempt to "assume our inferiority" as a pretext of giving us some benefit - we REJECT this offer because with such an acceptance we compromise our own consciousness toward "equality".

If the precedence which assumed "Black Inferiority" can be put to death on the government provisioning side of the balance scale then most certainly we as a people can craft a body of precedence on the other side.

This is a precedent that I would blindly follow, cutting off all debate to the contrary.

No comments: